Gold Refined, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. Wherein many other pretended Scripture-Poofs and Arguments for the baptizing of Infants are anſwered, as that, Suffer little Children to come unto me, &c. and, Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot ſee the Kingdom of God, &c.
THE next main Proof that is brought for Infant-Baptiſm, is taken from Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Object. Chriſt bleſſed little Children, 'tis not ſaid he baptized them: Nay, 'tis ſaid he baptized not any with his own hands, Joh. 4. 1, 2. therefore no Infants.The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants, which is the greater; therefore, ſay you, Baptiſm belongs to them alſo, which is the leſſer.
Anſw. 1. That the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children we have no cauſe to doubt: But that they have a right to Baptiſm therefore, is deny'd; May not our Brethren infer from the greater to the leſſer thus as well, viz. Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the greater; thererefore to them belongeth the Lord's Supper, which is the leſſer: and ſure we are, that thoſe who are fit Subjects of Baptiſm ought not to be deny'd the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. How often muſt we tell you that Baptiſm wholly depends, as to Subject, Time, End, and manner of Adminiſtration, on the words of Inſtitution? 'tis a poſitive Law, we muſt go to the Pleaſure, and Will, and Deſign of the Law-maker: what may not Men infer after this ſort?
2. Were theſe little Children be ye ſure the Children of Believers? If you can't prove this, what ſignifies all you ſay? and how this can be made appear I ſee not; for though Chriſt was then in the Coaſt of Judea, yet that they were Children of Godly Parents is a great Queſtion.
3. If it ſhould be granted they were Believers Children, yet it doth not appear how little theſe Children were, we have no account of their Age. And as the Learned obſerve, the Greek work doth not always ſignify a little Child or Infant, as appears by 2 Tim. 3. 15. where the ſame word is uſed, they might be such who might be capable of teaching as far as we know.
But ſince Dr. Jer. Taylor, Dr. Taylor, p. 230.Biſhop of Down, hath so fully anſwered this Objection, pray take what he ſaith upon the place.
From the Action of Chriſt's bleſſing Infants, saith he, to infer that they were baptized, proves nothing ſo much, as there is a want of better Arguments: for the Concluſion would with more probability be derived thus, i. e. Chriſt bleſſed Children and ſo diſmiſſed them, but baptized them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptized. But let this be as weak as its Enemy, yet that Chriſt did not baptize them, is an Argument ſufficient, that he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven than by Baptiſm; he paſſed an Act of Grace upon them by Benediction and Impoſition of Hands. And therefore although neither Infants, nor any Man, in p…ris naturalibus, can attain to a Supernatural End without the addition of ſome Inſtrument, or Means of God's appointing, ordinarily and regularly; yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the caſe of Infants we contend he hath not, the Argument is invalid.
And as we are ſure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized; ſo we are sure God will do them no Injuſtice, nor damn them for what they cannot help, viz. if the Parents baptize them not.
Many thouſand ways there are, by which God can bring any reaſonable Soul to him; but nothing is more unreaſonable than becauſe he hath tied all Men of Years and Diſcretion to this way, therefore we of our own Heads ſhall carry Infants to him that way, without his directions: the Conceit is poor and low, and the Action conſequent to it is bold and venturous; let him do what he pleaſe with Infants, we muſt not. Thus far the Doctor.
A ſecond Scripture brought formerly by Doctor Featly, and of late by divers others, is that in Joh. 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Object. There is no other way to regenerate and ſave Infants but by this of Baptiſm, and ſo to add them to the Church, therefore they ought to be baptized.
In ſome,Ambros. New Birth in p. 13. saith Mr. Iſaac Ambroſe, the new Birth is wrought before Baptiſm, as in the Eun…h, &c. in others is the new Birth wrought in Baptiſm, … indeed is the Sacrament of the new Birth, and Sea… of Regeneration, but howſoever in Pedo-Baptiſm, we ſee the outward Seal, yet we ſeel not the manner of the inward working, for this alſo is the ſecret of the Spirit.
Anſw. There is no pretended Proof for Infant-Baptiſm brought by the Aſſerters of it, that I wonder at more than this, eſpecially conſidering how fully and excellently they are detected by ſeveral able Men of their own Party, yet notwithſtanding it ſeems to abide as a ſtanding Doctrine in the National Church, as witneſs their Catechiſm—Baptiſm, wherein I was made a Member of Chriſt, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. Pray ſee how excellently the late famous Stephen Charnock detects this Error;Charnock on Regener. laſt ſol. p. 75. It is not, ſaith he, External Baptiſm (speaking of Regeneration) many Men take Baptiſm for Regeneration, the Ancients uſually give it this term: One calls our Saviour's Baptiſm his Regeneration—this confers not Grace, but engageth to it: outward Water cannot convey inward Life. How can Water, an external thing, work upon the Soul in a phyſical manner? Neither can it be proved, that ever the Spirit of God is ty'd by any Promiſe, to apply himſelf to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is applyed to the Body. If it were ſo, that all that were baptized were regenerated, then all that were baptized ſhould be saved, or elſe the Doctrine of Perſeverance falls to the ground. Baptiſm is a means of conveying this Grace, when the Spirit is pleaſed to operate with it; but it doth not work as a phyſical Cauſe upon the Soul as a …rge doth upon the Humours of the Body: for 'tis the Sacrament of Regeneration, as the Lord's-Supper is of Nouriſhment. As a Man cannot be ſaid to be nouriſhed without Faith, ſo he cannot be ſaid to be a new Creature without Faith: Put the moſt delicious Meat into the Mouth of a dead Man, you do not nouriſh him, becauſe he wants a Principle of Life to concoct or digeſt it. Faith only is the Principle of ſpiritual Life, and the Principle which draws Nouriſhment from the Means of God's Appointment. Some indeed ſay, that Regeneration is conferred in Baptiſm upon the Elect, and exerts it ſelf afterwards in Converſion; but how ſo active a Principle as a Spiritual Life, ſhould lie dead and aſleep ſo long, even many Years, which intervene between Baptiſm and Converſion, is not eaſily conceivable. Thus far Mr. Charnock: others we find to agree with him herein.
Ameſius saith, Ameſius in Bell. Enervat. Tom. 3. l. 2. c. 3.outward Baptiſm cannot be a Phyſical Inſtrument of infuſing Grace, becauſe it hath it not in any wiſe in it ſelf.
Our late Annotators agree directly with theſe; nay, Dr. Owen saith, Pool's Annotat. on Joh. 3. 5.that the Father of Lies himſelf could not well have invented a more pernicious Opinion, or which might pour in a more deadly Poyſon into the Minds of Sinners.Dr. Owen in his Theol. l. 6. c. 5. p. 477.
If Baptiſm were meant here, then no Man can be ſaved without being baptized.
But none does the buſineſs better than the Learned Biſhop Taylor; For,Dr. Taylor's Liber. of Proph. p. 231. ſaith he, the Water and Spirit in this place, ſignifies the same thing; and by Water is meant the Effects of the Spirit cleanſing and purifying the Soul, as it appears in its parallel place, Chriſt's baptizing with the Holy Ghoſt and with Fire: for although this was literally fulfilled in the day of Pentecoſt; yet morally there is more in it; for it is the ſign of the Effect of the holy Spirit, and his Productions upon the Soul: And you may as well conclude, that Infants muſt alſo paſs through the Fire, as through the Water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the preſſure of this place, Peter ſaith the ſame thing: For where he ſaith that Baptiſm ſaves us, he adds by way of Explication (not the waſhing away of the Filth of the Fleſh, but the Anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God) plainly ſaying that it is not Water, or the purifying of the Body, but cleanſing of the Spirit that doth that which is ſuppoſed to be the Effect of Baptiſm. But to ſuppoſe it meant of external Baptiſm, yet this no more infers a neceſſity of Infant-Baptiſm, than the other words of Chriſt infer a neceſſity to give them the holy Communion, Joh. 6. 53. Except ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you; and yet we do not think theſe words a ſufficient Argument to communicate with them: if any Man therefore will do us Juſtice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infunts, as ſome Ages of the Church did, or neither: for the Wit of Man is not able to ſhew a diſparity in the Sanction, or in the Energy of its Expreſſions. And therefore they were honeſt that underſtood the Obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly; and yet becauſe we ſay they were deceived in one Inſtance, and yet the Obligation (all the World cannot reaſonably ſay but) is the ſame they are honeſt and reaſonable that do neither: and ſure the Ancient Church did with an equal Opinion of neceſſity give them the Communion, and yet now adays Men do not; Why ſhould Men be more burdened with a Prejudice and a name of Obliquity for not giving Infants one Sacrament, more than you are diſliked for not affording them the other? Thus far Dr. Taylor. If what theſe great Men ſay is not ſufficient utterly to invalidate this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptiſm, we know not what to ſay.
A third Proof they bring to prove the baptizing of Babes,The Proof from whole Houſholds examined. is taken from thoſe places that speak of the baptizing of whole Houſholds, as the Jaylor and his Houſe, Lydia and her Houſe, &c.
Object. Whole Houſholds we read were baptized, therefore ſome Children were in the Primitive Time baptized.
Anſw. To which we anſwer, that the Conſequence is not natural from the Antecedent, unleſs you can prove there were no whole Houſholds but in which were ſome little Babes; make that appear, and this is the beſt Argument you can bring.—But the contrary is very evident; for how many hundred Houſholds or Families are there in this City in which there are no little Children, but all Adult Perſons? which being ſo▪ how uncertain is your Inference?
Secondly, But ſuppoſe there were Children in thoſe Houſholds (for uſually in Scripture by a Figure which is called Syn…doche) the whole is put for part, or a part for the whole.
Hence we read Jeruſalem, and all Judea, and all the Regions about …ordan went out to be baptized of John; that is, many of thoſe places in Jeruſalem, Judea, and in thoſe Regions.
So 'tis ſaid, 1 Sam. 1. 21, 22, 23. That Elkanah, and all his Houſe went up to offer unto the Lord yearly Sacrifice, &c. yet, verſ. 22. 'tis as expreſly said, that Hannah and her Child went not up, who were part of his Houſe, yet 'tis ſaid all his Houſe (or Houſhold) went up. Exod. 9. 6. 'tis ſaid, All the Cattle of Egypt died, that is, all that were in the Field, ſee Chap. 14. 26, 28. and chap. 9. 26. I could give you many other Examples of the ſame nature wherein the whole is taken but for part; And from hence 'tis that Dr. Hammond grants, that no concluding Argument can be deduc'd from the baptizing whole Houſholds, to baptize Children; and therefore, in his Judgment, Arguments drawn from hence are better wav'd, than made uſe of by the Defenders of Infant-baptiſm. And certainly the Doctor judges but rationally therein (saith a worthy and Learn'd Man) becauſe a clear Word of Inſtitution (or plain Precedents) ought to be the ground of the practice of all Goſpel-Ordinances, eſpecially in the caſe of Baptiſm, one of the great Sacraments of the New Teſtaments.
Thirdly, We will ſee in the next place what the Holy Ghoſt hath left on Record concerning thoſe whole Houſholds that are ſaid to be Baptized.
Firſt, The Jaylor's Houſhold, Acts 16. 33. He was Baptized, and all his. Whether he had any Children 'tis a great Queſtion; [his] may refer to his Wife, Servants, and Domeſtick Friends and Relations, &c. However, 'tis expreſly said, that Paul and Silas ſpake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his Houſe; certainly they did not preach to little Babes: And, Verſ. 34. 'tis ſaid, He rejoiced, believeng in God with all his Houſe. Obſerve, (1.) he and all his Houſe had the Goſpel preached to them. (2.) He and all his Houſe believed: And (3.) he and all his Houſe rejoiced; as well as 'tis ſaid, He and all his were baptized.
Can there be any Reaſon given, ſaith Mr. Goſnold, why [his] verſ. 33. ſhould be larger than [all his Houſe] verſ. 32, 34. theſe two Verſes being a Key to the 33d Verſe, (saith he) and this Houſhold a Key to all the other?
The ſecond Houſhold is that of Criſpus, The Second whole Houſhold.Acts 18. 8. And Criſpus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, believed in God with all his Houſe: and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized. All that is ſaid of his Houſhold, is, that they believed; beſides, the ſcope of the Text ſhews, none were baptized, but ſuch who firſt believed; and they, we ſay, and none but they, are true Subjects of Baptiſm, that believe.
The third Houſhold, is the Houſhold of Stephanus; I baptized, The third whole Houſhold.ſaith Paul, the Houſhold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1. 16. And, he ſaith, the Houſe of Stephanus was the firſt Fruits of Acaia, and that they had addicted themſelves to the Miniſtry of the Saints, which little Children were not capable to do, Chap. 16. 15.
The fourth Houſhold is that of Lydia, The fourth Houſhold.Acts 16. 14, 15. Whether this good Woman was a Maid, Widow, or Wife, is uncertain: If ſhe had been a married Woman, 'tis much there is no mention made of her Huſband: Beſides, ſhe is reckon'd the Head of the Family [her] Houſhold; which would not have been, ſaith Mr. Goſnold, if at this time ſhe had a Huſband. Grant, saith he, ſhe were a Widow, yet ſhe might have no Children; or if any, they might be grown up; and to ſuch Children we deny not Baptiſm upon profeſſion of Faith. Beſides, ſhe was at this time from her own Dwelling, and that many miles diſtant, for ſhe was of the City of Thyatira; but now was at the City of Philippi, where she was a merchandizing, being a ſeller of Purple. Grant ſhe had Children, how unlikely a matter is it, ſaith he, that ſhe ſhould carry them about with her, trading ſo many miles diſtant? But, finally, to reſolve the Doubt, the laſt Verſe of this Chapter, calls them of the Houſe of Lydia Brethren; They entred into the Houſe of Lydia; and when they had … the Brethren, they comforted them, and departed. Who now can conclude rationally, that any Children were in any of theſe Houſholds? 'Tis a ha…d caſe Men are forc'd to fly to ſuch weak and unlikely grounds to prove their practice; but as the Proverb goes, A poor Shift is better than none at all.
The next Proof they bring to prove Infant-Baptiſm, is from Acts 2. 39. The Promiſe is to you, and to your Children, &c.
The Pedo baptiſts would ſain have this Promiſe to be a Promiſe of External Priviledg,The Promiſe is to … and to … Act. 2. 3…. … and ſuch as gives Children of Believers a right to Baptiſm: but that there is no ſuch thing in the leaſt to be proved from this place, we ſhall make appear by opening the Text.
Firſt, 'Tis evident that Peter preach'd this Sermon to the Jews, and to many of them who had a hand in mur…hering the Lord of Life and Glory: And this he laid home, and preſt upon their Conſciences very cloſe; and they being prick'd in their Hearts, cried out, Men and Brethren, what ſhall we do? If it be thus,Act. 2. 37. we are loſt Men and undone. No: as if Peter ſhould ſay, Do not diſpair, upon your Repentance there is Mercy for you. Then ſaid Peter unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, for the Remiſſion of Sins, and ye ſhall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit—For the Promiſe is unto you. Ay, this is good News indeed, they might ſay; But what will become of our Children, our Off-spring? for we have wiſh'd that his Blood might not only be upon our ſelves, but alſo upon our Children. Well, what tho? let not this terrify you, neither as to drive you into deſpair; for the Promiſe is not only to you who repent, &c. but to your Children, or Off-spring alſo; your Poſterity shall not be loſt, for the Promiſe is unto them as it is to you, viz. if they repent; and not only to them of your Race or Poſterity, but alſo to all that are afar off, Eph. 2. 13.meaning the Gentiles, who were ſaid to be ſometimes afar off. But now if they would know who of their Children, and thoſe who were afar off, the Promiſe was made unto: In the cloſe of the Verſe, he reſolves them in theſe words, Even to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call.
The Promiſe therefore here evident, is that of the Spirit, and all the Divine Graces and Bleſſings of it, which was promiſed, and firſt tendered unto the Jews and their Off-spring, upon unfeigned Repentance, and turning to God; or being effectually called and brought over, to cloſe in with the Tenders of Mercy; and then to the Gentiles, who in like manner ſhould be wrought upon, or effectually called: This Promiſe was not made to their Children, as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other, uncalled by the Lord, but with this expreſs Proviſo, Even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Which Calling, or effectual Work of Grace upon their Souls, made them capable Subjects of Baptiſm: Nor are the words, to you and your Children, mentioned as an acknowledgment of a Priviledg to them above others, being Abraham's Seed according to the Fleſh, but by reaſon doubtleſs of their Wiſh. Mat. 27. 25. His Blood he on us, and on our Children.
Nor is there the leaſt intimation given of a right to Baptiſm to them, or their Children, as the Children of Believers, but as an Exhortation to them and theirs, to repent, and be baptized, as their Duty, for their Benefit and Soul-advantage, the Promiſe being not mentioned; as though of it ſelf it gave a title to Baptiſm, either to them or their Off-spring, without Repentance. But as a Motive, why both they and their Children should actually repent, and be baptized, i. e. becauſe in ſo doing, they would be in the way of obtaining Remiſſion of Sin, and receive the Holy Spirit, the two grand Branches of the Promiſe here mentioned. Which Duty of Repentance little Children being not capable of performing, are not therefore according to this direction of the Apoſtle the proper Subjects of ſuch an Ordinance.
By Children, here ſaith, a Learned Man, is not meant their Infants, but the Poſterity of the Jews: And ſo Dr. Hammond grants it, and therefore confeſſeth this place a very unconcluding Argument for Infant-Baptiſm.
And, ſays he, though by Children be here meant the Poſterity of the Jews, yet not the natural or carnal Seed neither, but the Spiritual; as appears by the laſt words in the verſe, viz. Even to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call.
So that it is very evident, that this Text is groſly abuſed, by ſuch as infer from hence a title to Baptiſm, for Children of Believers, by virtue of a Promiſe to them as ſuch; whereas it is manifeſt from the whole ſcope of the Context, that it is only an incouragement to the Jews againſt Diſpair, by reaſon of their crucifying the Son of God, letting them know that yet there was hope of Mercy and Pardon for them and their Children,Pools Annot. on Act. 2. 39. upon the reſpective Repentance of both, or either of them. And to the ſame purpoſe our late Annotators I find give it, ſpeaking of this Text.
A Fifth pretended Scripture-proof for Infant-Baptiſm,The Proof for Infant-Baptiſm—(Elſe were your Children unclean, &c.) anſwered. is taken from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Elſe were your Children Vnclean, but now are they Holy.
Object. From hence 'tis aſſerted, That the Children of Believers are holy with a Federal or Covenant-Holineſs, and therefore to be baptized.
Anſw. To this we anſwer, That the ſame ſort of Holineſs which is aſcribed to the Children, is to be underſtood in reference to the unbelieving Huſband, or the unbelieving Wife, who are both said to be ſanctified by their reſpective Yoke-fellows; which cannot be meant of a federal or a Covenant-holineſs, but that which is matrimonial: For if we muſt underſtand it of a Covenant-holineſs, then it will follow, that the unbelieving Wife, or unbelieving Huſband may, upon the ſame ground lay claim to Baptiſm as well as their Children, which yet your ſelves will not grant. Beſides, it is evident from the words themſelves, in which the Term Huſband and Wife are twice uſed, which ſhews, that the Holineſs is from the conjugal Relation, and cannot be meant of any other than Legitimation. And the term Vnbeliever is alſo twice uſed, and ſaid to be Sanctified, which can have no other ſence but this, that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is ſanctified, or made meet in reſpect of conjugal uſe, to his or her Yoke-fellow: And ſo though the one be an Unbeliever, yet they might comfortably enough live together in lawful Wedlock. See our duplicate page duplicate page late Annotators;Pool's Annotat. on 1 Cor. 7. 14. I rather think (ſay they) it ſignifies brought into a State that the Believer, without Offence to the Law of God, may continue in a married Eſtate with ſuch a Yoke-fellow; for elſe, saith the Apoſtle, your Children were unclean, that is, would be accounted illegitimate. But now this being determined, that the Husband is thus ſanctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband, though the one be an Unbeliever, hence it follows, that your Children are holy; that is, lawfully begotten, which is the only ſenſe oppoſite to the Determination, ver. 12, 13. It was, 'tis plain, about this matter thoſe Saints at Corinth wrote to the Apoſtle, and therefore according to the ſcope of the place it cannot intend any thing elſe. And as for the uſe of the word Holy for Legitimate, that it is in this ſenſe uſed elſe-where in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. where a Seed of God, or a Godly Seed, can be underſtood in no other ſenſe than that of a lawful Seed, in oppoſition to thoſe born by Polygamy.
Neither ought any Man to infer Federal Holineſs to be intended here, unleſs he can prove from ſome other Text in the New Teſtament any ſuch Holineſs to be in Children, i. e. becauſe Parents are Believers and in the Covenant of Grace, their natural Seed muſt therefore be ſo eſteemed, and have the like Right to Goſpel-Baptiſm as the Children under the Law had to Circumciſion, which is no where to be found in all the New-Teſtament, but the quite contrary, as has been proved; and therefore this Interpretation ought not to be admitted,2 Pet. 1. 20. but utterly to be rejected in regard of what the Apoſtle Peter aſſeres.
How falſe and ridiculous therefore is that which Mr.Smythies Non-communicant, p. 88. Smythies hath lately affirmed: Whenſoever, saith he, God enters into Covenant with the Parent, he enters into Covenant with the Children of that Parent; that is, the Children were included in the Covenant, and the Bleſſings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the Parent. They that will build their Faith upon ſuch kind of Men deſerve to be deceived, who ſpeak what they pleaſe, and prove nothing; as if this was ſo becauſe Mr. Smythies ſays it. I muſt charge it upon him as falſe Doctrine, (1.) As being quite contrary to the Nature of the Goſpel-Diſpenſation and Conſtitution of the New Teſtament-Church, wherein the Fleſhly Seed are rejected and caſt out in reſpect of Church-Priviledges and Ordinances. (2.) What is this but to intail Grace to Nature, and Regeneration to Generation? in oppoſition to what our Saviour ſaith, John 3. 3. and Paul, Epheſ. 2. 1, 2. (3.) It alſo contradicts all Mens Experience. How palpable is it that Godly Men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times? What, wicked Children, and yet in the Covenant of Grace! Or, were they in it, and are they now fallen out of it? What a Covenant then do you make that ſure and everlaſting Covenant of Grace to be?
Beſides, we have many learned Men and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text,Mr. Danvers Treat▪ of Bapt. p. 165, 166. as Mr. Danvers obſerves and …uotes them.
Auſtin ſaith, it is to hold without doubting; whatſoever that Sanctification was, it was not of Power to make Chriſtians and remit Sins.
Ambroſe upon this place,Ambroſe. ſaith, the Children are holy becauſe they are born of lawful Marriage.
Melancthon in his Commentary upon this ſame Text ſaith thus,Melanct. Therefore Paul anſwers, that their Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder for their unlike Opinions of God; if the impious Perſon do not caſt away the other; and for comfort he adds as a Reaſon, The unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by the believing Wife. Meat is ſanctified; for that which is holy in uſe, that is, it is granted to Believers from God; ſo here he ſpeaks of the uſe of Marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law, as Swines Fleſh, and a Woman in her Pollution, were called unclean. The Connexion of this, if the uſe of Marriage ſhould not pleaſe God, your Children would be Baſtards, and ſo unclean: But your Children are not Baſtards, therefore the uſe of the Marriage pleaſeth God: And how Baſtards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law ſhews, Deut. 23.
Camtrarius in his Commentary upon this place alſo ſaith,Camerar. (for the unbelieving Husband hath been ſanctified, an unuſual change of the Tenſe, that is) ſanctified in the lawful uſe of Marriage; for without this, ſaith he, it would be that their Children ſhould be unclean, that is, infamous and not legitimate, who ſo are holy, that is, during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy.
Eraſmus ſaith likewiſe,Eraſmus. Infants born of ſuch Parents as one being a Chriſtian, the other not, are holy legitimately; for the Converſion of either Wife or Husband doth not diſſolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers.
What Reaſon now had Dr. Featly and others to contemn this Expoſition of the Text, conſidering what we and ſo many Learned Men have declared as touching this matter? for a more fuller Anſwer read Mr. Danvers, p. 166, 167, 168, 169.
But after all, ſhould it be allowed that the Holineſs in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Faederal or Covenant-Holineſs, yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a ſufficient Proof for Infant-Baptiſm; for let the Holineſs be what it will, whether Moral, Faederal, or Matrimonial, neither of theſe is any where aſſigned to be a ground of baptizing Infants; the Inſtitution,Baptiſm only a poſitive Law; who the Subjects of it, are depends wholly upon the Will of God, &c. Commiſſion, and Practice of the Apoſtolical Church being that alone that can warrant the ſame: 'Tis God's Word only, not Mens Reaſon, conceited Grounds and Inferences, that can juſtify a Practice, or make a Goſpel-Ordinance; if all therefore was granted which you affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham of Circumciſion and Faederal-Holineſs, yet Infant-Baptiſm is gone, unleſs you can prove God hath from this ground commanded you to baptize your Children, or that they were for this Reaſon admitted to Baptiſm in the Apoſtles Time (for all your Arguments from thence prove as ſtrongly, that your Infants may partake of the Lord's-Supper, &c.) But that any thing leſs than a Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance is or can be a ſufficient ground for baptizing any Perſon, young or old, we do deny, ſith the New Teſtament is the only Rule or perfect Copy, by the Authority of which we ought to act and perform all Duties of inſtituted Worſhip, and adminiſter Sacraments, &c. which are m…re poſitive Precepts, and depend only upon the Will and Pleaſure of the Law-maker. So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptiſm.
A ſixth Proof of Infant-Baptiſm is grounded upon Mark 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not, ſhall be damned.
Now they affirm that Infants are Believers, and therefore are to be baptized.
Mr. Smythies ſays, Infants are Believers in a ſenſe, or elſe they could not be ſaved,Mr. Smythies Argument, that Infants are Believers. nor have right to the Promiſes of Chriſt in the Goſpel; and if they are in any ſenſe ſuch Believers as are intitled to Salvation, they are such Believers as have a right to Baptiſm; if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle, the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewiſe: the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer, as the Child of a Proſelyte was called a proſelyte: if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers, it is ſufficient to entitle them to Baptiſm. Thus Mr. Smythies.
But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any ſenſe? is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them ſo to be? if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Chriſt, he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do, I mean Children, as ſuch in common and in an ordinary way, to be Believers. True, nothing is too hard for God to do: he that can make an Aſs to ſpeak, can as well cauſe a Babe to believe: But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith, or the Act of Faith, or Faith in any ſenſe to render them to be Believers? But 'tis intimated they are Believers by their Parents Faith: why may not their Parents Baptiſm ſerve as well as their Parents Faith, and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names alſo, and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parents Faith? And what though the Eſtate belongs to the Child in the Cradle, together with the Indenture and Seals of that Eſtate; Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore ſet his Seal to the Indenture? is that requiſite, or would it make the Estate the more firm or ſure to him? But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary, and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Perſon, all his Children muſt needs be ſuch too, you do your buſineſs.
Secondly, But why do you ſay Children muſt be Believers, or elſe they can't be ſaved? who told you ſo?Faith nor Baptiſm is not required of Infants, yet they may be ſaved. Becauſe Faith in Adult Perſons is required as neceſſary in them, if they are ſaved. Can't God ſave poor Infants without they alſo do believe? has God told you he cannot, or will not ſave them except they believe? I muſt confeſs I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldneſs: God,Dr. Taylor, p. 230. as Dr. Taylor obſerves, may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jeſus Chriſt to them which we know not of; and what have you to do with the Secrets of God? who made you one of his Privy-Council? you may as well ſay, unleſs they repent they cannot be ſaved from Chriſt's words, Luk 13. 3, 5. and that they muſt be obedient and take up the Croſs, for theſe things are required of Adult Perſons that would be ſaved as well as believing.
Thirdly, Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers; or if it was granted he hath, would it therefore …ollow they may be baptized? certainly no, for we read of many who were ſaid to believe*See Joh. 2. 23, & cap. 8. 30, 31, 44., they had ſome kind of Faith, and ſo in ſome ſenſe had the denomination of …, and yet had no right to Baptiſm, for ſuch ought to have … Faith, or to believe with all their Hearts, … Philip ſaid to the Eunuch, Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance, or have a ſufficient Title to it: and would not that believing (in any ſenſe) you ſpeak of, that entitles them to Salvation, give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptiſm? Come, Sir, you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you pleaſe. Baptiſm depends wholly, I say again, upon the Authority of a poſitive Law, and expreſs words of Inſtitution*I am forc'd to repeat this often, becauſe there is the like occaſion given, and it is a full Anſwer to all ſuch Inferencse.; and none but ſuch who are made Diſciples by preaching, or who do actually believe, ought from thence to be baptized.
I wonder what Faith 'tis you ſuppoſe to be in Infants? is it the Faith of the Church, as Tho. Aquinas aſſerts, which is intailed upon all within the pale thereof? Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant, as Muſculus and others maintain? Or, is it the Faith of the Goſſip or Surety, as many of your Church ſay, i. e. others believe for them? Have they a juſtifying Faith, What Confuſion is here among the Pedo-Baptiſts?as Mr. Baxter intimates? or a dogmatical Faith only, as in Mr. Blake's Senſe? Some, as Mr. Danvers obſerves, ſay 'tis a Phyſical, ſome a Metaphyſical, and ſome a Hyperphyſical Faith. Some ſay they are born Believers, others ſay they are made Believers by Baptiſm. Now when you tell us what Faith they have, we ſhall the better underſtand you, and give you an Anſwer.
A Perſonal and actual Faith,Dr. Taylor. ſaith Dr. Taylor, they have not, for they have no Acts of Underſtanding; beſides, how can any Man know they have Faith, ſince he never ſaw any ſign …, neither was he told ſo by any that could tell. Secondly, ſaith he, Some ſay they have Imputative Faith: But then ſo let the Sacraments be too, that is, if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches, then ſo let Baptiſm be imputed alſo by derivation from them: And as in their Mothers Womb, and while they hang upon their Mothers Breaſts, they live upon their Mothers Nouriſhment; so they may upon the Baptiſm of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for ſince Faith is neceſſary to the ſuſception of Baptiſm (and they themſelves confeſs it, by ſtriving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter;) ſuch as the Faith, ſuch muſt be the Sacrament: for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament, and an Imputative Faith, this being in immediate and neceſſary order to that. This ſaith the Biſhop.
We know there are ſome argue ſtifly for Infants having habitual Faith; but as the ſaid Doctor ſaith, Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or conſequent to this pretended Habit? this strange Invention, ſaith he, is abſolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reaſon, or Authority. But the Men are to be excuſed, unleſs they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice; they are forc'd to confeſs the Truth in the main, viz. That Faith is required of Perſons to be baptized, and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe. But I will conclude this with what the ſaid Doctor further ſaith,Dr. Taylor, p. 242. And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Creſphugeton, that Infants have Faith, or any other inſpired Habit of I know not what, or how, we deſire no more advantage than that they are conſtrained to anſwer without Revelation againſt Reaſon, common Senſe, and all the Experience in the World.